First The Internet, Then The World!

The UN has decided that it might be a good idea to "regulate" the internet? Let's see, where have we heard speech like this before?

WikiLeaks sparks push for tighter controls.

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would to attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for an "takeover" of the internet.

Anyone who thinks that this doesn't constitute a "takeover of the internet" is naive. The fact that the Brazilian delegate felt the need to tell people otherwise is an admission of true intent. In other words they want people to believe that there is some other way of controlling the flow of information without a takeover.

There seems to be a long pattern of "officials" expressing a need to limit freedoms, then a followup remark stating that there won't be any lack of freedom as a result of their actions. If what these "officials" were expressing were true, their message could be articulated very simply. The fact is that their intentions are the exact opposite of what they say.

Why is it that when there is a problem with government, such as loosing classified documents, the proposed solution, all to often involves an attack on freedom. Were the WikiLeaks document dumps the fault of too much internet freedom, or lack of security on behalf of the U.S. government?

Those who want to regulate things tend to use the following logic. Because one individual dies while using a hair-dryer in the bathtub, hair-driers are the problem. So if that same person would have died using a toaster in the bathtub toasters would be the problem.

Why is it that so often the agent of action is blamed (then targeted for correction) and not the cause? It's like a drunk driver blaming a tree because they crashed into it.

It's the same line of thinking which always ends with an erosion of freedom. The nanny state needs to limit your freedom for your own safety, or in the case of WikiLeaks, for the government(s) safety.

UPDATE! -- Chavez thinks internet regulation is a good idea.

Chavez's congressional allies are considering extending the "Social Responsibility Law" for broadcast media to the Internet, banning messages that "disrespect public authorities," "incite or promote hatred" or crimes, or are aimed at creating "anxiety" in the population.

Government opponents and press freedom groups have been critical of the plan, saying it is one of several measures being considered that could restrict freedoms in Venezuela.

"We aren't eliminating the Internet here ... nor censoring the Internet," Chavez said during his weekly television and radio program, "Hello, President." "What we're doing is protecting ourselves against crimes, cybercrimes, through a law."

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.